Regulatory Changes Security Companies Should Be Watching in 2026

Compliance is a major issue in many industries, and private security is among the most affected as state lawmakers continue to increase oversight.

Complicating matters is the fact that each state sets its own standards, so national firms must prioritize compliance and monitor changes before they become enforcement issues.

While compliance has always been front and center in security, keeping up with the changes has become a full-time practice. In most cases, new legislation mandates additional training and modifications to existing training and licensing protocols.

As enforcement steps up, proactive training mitigates risk, bolsters guard confidence, and reduces liability for the firm.

Today, we’ll highlight some of the most pressing regulatory changes coming our way to help you prepare the groundwork for what’s next.

Why Regulatory Monitoring Matters More Than Ever

One thing we can say about our world today is that nothing stays the same for long. Advances in technology, compliance standards, and mounting organizational expectations put significant pressure on companies to adapt, stay agile, and be ready to roll with change.

New state regulations are popping up everywhere, and in some cases, they don’t seem to involve security directly. However, they may affect a guard’s responsibilities indirectly, in which case they need to be aware of those responsibilities and the risks of noncompliance.

Multi-state operators face even greater risk as there is no federal standard. Training, therefore, must be adapted based on each state’s requirements, which can be a minefield if not handled efficiently.

Whether your firm has a compliance team or relies on experience and insider news to inform operations, missing even one change can create problems that resonate throughout the entire organization.

Washington’s SHB 2422: What Security Companies Need to Know

Washington’s SHB 2422 seeks to set minimum standards for private security firms. One of the most significant is that firms are now financially responsible for a guard’s license. This means that guards are no longer required to bear that burden themselves. Instead, their employer must do this. The amendment addresses widespread affordability issues and is intended to prevent an employee from starting their job in debt due to the license fee.

Per the bill:

“A private security company is directed to pay the application, license renewal, and endorsement fee for all private security guards employed by or who have received an offer of employment from the company. The private security company must provide its billing PIN to the employee. A private security company may not require a private security guard to reimburse the application, license renewal, or endorsement fees, including deducting such costs from the employee’s wages.”

Violation of this rule carries a $500 fine per violation for the company. If the firm has had previous infractions, it may face license suspension or revocation.

Licenses are to be transferred from one employer to the next with no additional fees levied.

Effective date: The bill takes effect this year, on November 1, 2026.

What you can do now: review onboarding policies and procedures, and amend them to meet the deadline.

California’s SB 1203 and the Continuing Evolution of Guard Training Requirements

SB 1203 introduces changes to how guards are trained, regulated, and compensated in California. The bill has passed the Senate and will take effect on July 1, 2028.

Here are some of the most significant changes firms should be aware of:

• Mandatory de-escalation training, implicit and explicit bias, racial profiling, and use of firearms.
• Initial firearms training requirements increased to 16 hours of in-person instruction.
• Training hours increased to 42, including 8 hours of in-person use-of-force training.
• A BSIS-approved instructor must conduct training.
• Employers must compensate trainees for their time.
• Enhanced reporting for firearm discharges; all reports must now include data on race, gender, and whether the officer had received all required training.
• Fines are increased to $10,000 per violation.

This legislation impacts all security guards and firms. Noncompliance can result in license revocation or non-issuance. In the latter case, a firm’s business continuity may be at risk because of licensing delays.

Effective date: July 1, 2028.

What you can do to take action now:

• Establish relationships with approved training organizations to ensure compliance.
• Maintain training records and audit-ready documentation for review.
• Review guard licenses and renewal dates.
• Track renewals and additional training or continuing education (CE) requirements, and pre-schedule training to ensure no deadlines are missed.

Other State Regulatory Trends Worth Monitoring

Washington and California may have the most significant changes we’re seeing of late, but they are part and parcel of a wider trend. Areas of focus tend to center on public interaction, documentation, and accountability.

Even if nothing concrete has emerged in your state, they are likely to become legislative issues in the near future.

Enhanced training requirements. Training requirements are expanding beyond basic licensing and will likely include de-escalation, crisis intervention, mental health awareness, cultural literacy, emergency preparedness, and active shooter response techniques. Most of these fall under the banner of Human Response Training and may require periodic refreshers or formal certification to maintain the license.

Use-of-force training standards now emphasize training in alternatives to force, proportional response, and conflict resolution as prerequisites for licensing. Expect more scrutiny of instructor qualifications, training documentation, and incident reporting wherever force is part of the equation.

Reporting obligations differ from state to state, but suffice it to say that the requirements are becoming more stringent and demand a greater level of detail. In many cases, guards may be obligated to report on demographic information such as race, age, and gender. Accurate reporting is a regulatory requirement and becomes pivotal in an audit or lawsuit. While this has always been the case, we expect the practice to become enforceable and subject to penalties for noncompliance.

Licensing modernization initiatives have expanded to allow online applications and digital recordkeeping. While this makes it easier and faster to process submissions, it also places an additional administrative burden on the employer. In best practice, monitor license expiration dates closely and ensure all compliance documentation is up to date.

Technology-related compliance requirements. Body cams, mobile reporting, and AI-powered surveillance systems are widespread in security, and regulators are beginning to establish standards governing their use. Privacy, data retention, data security, and access control are in the frame. Firms are well-advised to update their policies to align with the most stringent standards to stay ahead of the game.

The Problem with Reactive Compliance Management

Compliance is never one-and-done, especially in today’s reality. But you’ll want to avoid taking a reactive stance and waiting to act until new laws take effect, which can cause unnecessary disruption and leave you short-staffed and scrambling to retrain your guards.

Monitor state-level changes, track proposed legislation, and revise training and policy manuals in advance of deadlines to mitigate risk and ensure audit readiness. Assign ownership of these tasks to ensure they are fulfilled; make it part of your SOP.

The Bottom Line: Why We Must Treat Compliance as a Business Strategy

Firms can no longer treat compliance as just an admin task. By framing the process as a business strategy, firms can reduce risk and liability, improve guard morale, and mitigate the financial implications of noncompliance.

Explore our online interactive guard training modules today to learn how they can enhance your training program.